ray 105 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Document released by sphell with regard to Nimmo Smith commission.http://bit.ly/OLtRUT Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTP 221 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Document released by sphell with regard to Nimmo Smith commission.http://bit.ly/OLtRUTCan you sum it up ray? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Document released by sphell with regard to Nimmo Smith commission.http://bit.ly/OLtRUTWhy do you never give your initial thoughts , when you post info like this Ray? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 Can you sum it up ray?It appears to make the VB statement look like an empty hoose, nothing in it.Strangely the document suggests the authorities may require the assistance of "the court" which one I am not at this moment sure about, could be the The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Anyone fancy pasting the article pls. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 Why do you never give your initial thoughts , when you post info like this Ray?I find it safer not to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I find it safer not to. Is your fav Beatles song .......Twist and Shout Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamibianBear 1,851 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Reading the document but I think paragraph 7 rather nicely sums up our historic state with regards the operator over the club arguments. Perhaps someone can copy and paste that here for me? Then I can force it up the ass of all those who say we are not the same club..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 http://www.scotprem.com/content/mediaassets/doc/SPL%20Commission%20reasons%20for%20decision%20of%2012%20September%202012.pdfIf you look at page 20 of 21 as it appears on my phone anyhow the commission admit that enforcing any decision may require the assistance of a court. This is because of the argument that it could prejudice the interests of the administrator of the old co although the commission don't believe that's is the case. So off to court we go I think. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 D and P declined to participate because they thought it wasn't In the interests of the administration. Green believes he has bought the titles as part of the purchase. In order to take those away of that is the decision the commission admits a court may have to enforce it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisburnranger 36 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 D and P declined to participate because they thought it wasn't In the interests of the administration. Green believes he has bought the titles as part of the purchase. In order to take those away of that is the decision the commission admits a court may have to enforce it.Not quite mate. It means the only sanction available is stripping the titles. Anything else would be a sanction on the oldco and they would need to go to court to enforce that. This makes it legal process which you cannot do against a company in administration without the administrator's or court's permission. D&P have already said no. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Not quite mate. It means the only sanction available is stripping the titles. Anything else would be a sanction on the oldco and they would need to go to court to enforce that. This makes it legal process which you cannot do against a company in administration without the administrator's or court's permission. D&P have already said no.Therefore they admit that any punishment would require a court to enforce it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailichenko 90 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Bloody hell, someone's lawyers (cough HM cough) have been busy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 Therefore they admit that any punishment would require a court to enforce it.No they are saying that if oldco/newco fail to be represented or submit a defence by representation, the commission will administer "if any" sanctions that would be deemed fit. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillete 1,338 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 So for the numptys like meIs this good or bad for us ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisburnranger 36 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Therefore they admit that any punishment would require a court to enforce it.They would only have to go to court to enforce stripped titles if we initiated proceedings. This is the only sanction that would effect the club which is now owned by a newco. Anything effecting the oldco would be initiating legal process against a company in admin which is illegal. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 So for the numptys like meIs this good or bad for us ?It is just another cluster in a line of clusterfucks, I get the impression they are trying to extract Scottish football from this mess with the least damage possible and without the authorities losing face, which is now near impossible.I also get the impression they would like to draw a line sooner than later without stripping us of anything, common sense may be about to take over if all parties get something out of it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisburnranger 36 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 It appears to make the VB statement look like an empty hoose, nothing in it.Strangely the document suggests the authorities may require the assistance of "the court" which one I am not at this moment sure about, could be the The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).I'd go the other way mate. It shows the VB statement to be bang on. Anything other than stripped titles would be a huge expensive hassle for them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 I read part 52 again and it seems to say that the commission can administer a fine or other punishment but has no power to enforce a decision. The SPL may need the assistance of a court to enforce the decision of the commission. If I read this right if we are fined the SPL would simply become a creditor of the old co (and would be paid a pittance). Could be good or bad news Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaywalker 377 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Same as Gillette, Could someone explain this at cabbage level. Good, bad, not sure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theiconicman 3,000 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 The document is the reasons why the Commission feels that:1. It is independent2. Lord Nimmo is not biased, nor seen to be biased3. That both the club and Oldco continue to be contractually bound by the rules of the SPL4. That legal defence under the Insolvency Act does not apply5. That Rod MacKenzie's arguments were all fine and dandy and the Commission accepted them Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 I read part 52 again and it seems to say that the commission can administer a fine or other punishment but has no power to enforce a decision. The SPL may need the assistance of a court to enforce the decision of the commission. If I read this right if we are fined the SPL would simply become a creditor of the old co (and would be paid a pittance). Could be good or bad newsThey the sphell/commission cannot invoke a court of law for obvious reasons called UEFA/FIFA. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Would appreciate the thoughts of the legal experts here. I believe from reading that document the commission could administer a fine which would be due to the SPL from the old co. since the old co are in admin the SPL would just be creditors and would receive next to nothing. Could be a face saving way out to fine us and leave the titles alone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 They the sphell/commission cannot invoke a court of law for obvious reasons called UEFA/FIFA. So the commission could decide a punishment with the SPl would not pursue. Everyone's a winner Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmiston Drive 3,846 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 What everyone seems to forget is the statement form HMRC.......................we took this step to allow the club to continue to play it's football at Ibrox Stadium and keep it's history intact This step also protects the new Limited Company(who purchased all the assets of the old Limited Company while in administration) from any form of litigation linked to the administration of the old Limited Company.So once again............if they try and punish the new Limited Company , all we do is take them to court ...........ask them to show the rules they base the stripping of titles that another club was quite frankly shit at trying to win them............and not the date of said rules...............then produce the statement from HMRC........who surely must at some stage ask the administrators as to why monies belonging to the limited company in administration has not been paid.............or perhaps they are waiting for BDO to be installed once the Limited Company is officially in the hands of the appointed Liquidator who will go after the directors they find to have caused this by negligence or criminal activity and they will also go for the spl as the outstanding monies due. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.